Rayvin

As someone who advocated for immediate NATO intervention, I still believe we should have. We don't have wartime leaders though, so it was too big a decision for them, understandably. We're moving in the same direction as we would have if NATO had gotten involved which was inevitable unless Russia just outright won. The only real argument for NATO not getting involved immediately was that Ukraine was an acceptable sacrifice to avoid nuclear war - but as soon as they dug their heels in and made clear they weren't going to go quietly, that became impossible. Whether by NATO or Ukraine, Putin was going to be pushed to the same conclusion if he couldn't win. I don't think he'll go for nukes yet, but we might see more apparent indiscriminate shelling of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure and, frankly, civilians themselves. And again, NATO should step in. Ukraine deserves that.

Was reading earlier that the big "worry" now is that Putin doesn't really have any way out of this while saving face. Almost sounds like they think he'd pull out if it was remotely possible for him personally.

I'm working on the assumption that the use of NATO/Western hardware comes with guarantees and assurances of mission critical informational transfers - I'm not military but I certainly would have demanded that as part of the price of the hardware - but maybe you're right.

Also worth noting that NATO will 100% have known about this strike.

Patreaus said NATO would fully commit at that point. This is a big success for Ukraine - IMO not enough for Putin to go nuclear over, but enough to genuinely, seriously hurt him.

So has JRM just outed himself as a member of the nefarious Anti-Growth Coalition with that suggestion that people save energy instead of spending frivolously?

I continue to believe she's a true believer on this stuff. Hence this latest ridiculous position. If we don't spend, how can it all trickle down?

The idea that anyone is 'anti-growth' in this conversation is just absurd.

Liz Truss was wrong when she claimed in her conference speech that she was the first prime minister to have gone to a comprehensive school. Gordon Brown went to a comprehensive secondary school (Kirkcaldy High School), while Theresa May’s school was converted in a comprehensive while she was a pupil there - Holton Park Girls’ Grammar School, in Oxfordshire, became Wheatley Park Comprehensive School in 1971, two years after May enrolled. The education secretary at the time was Margaret Thatcher.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/05/over-330000-excess-deaths-in-great-britain-linked-to-austerity-finds-study?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other 330k deaths linked to austerity. It was always the real weapon of the Tories against the people of this country, and they wielded it long before Brexit. It can never be forgiven.

At this point, I genuinely believe that the group of people who will be most relieved when Labour take over the running of the country will be Tory Party MPs. What a shitshow this is.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus 'The US and its allies would destroy Russia’s troops and equipment in Ukraine – as well as sink its Black Sea fleet – if Russian president Vladimir Putin uses nuclear weapons in the country, former CIA director and retired four-star army general David Petraeus warned on Sunday.' “Just to give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a Nato – a collective – effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.” -- Petraeus

Is she worse than Johnson, already?

Aye this is all on Brexit. I doubt Putin could do more long lasting damage to this country by dropping a nuke on us than he's managed through paying for idiots to deliver Brexit.

At least it backs PR.

I think it might be better to let the whole thing collapse from within and have the Russians push for real change. Problem is that's only likely to happen if they get their arses handed to them in some capacity or another.

Having said all that, bring it the fuck on as far as I'm concerned. If it goes hot, it wouldn't be the moment for the West to shy back - it would be the moment we put the psychotic cunt down for good.

I'm also going to add that we (the UK) are very possibly a key target here. I have for some time been noticing the UK being cited by Russia throughout much of what goes on - and I don't know, maybe he's like that with France and Germany too but we only hear it about us because of the press, but genuinely I think we're right up there with the US on his shitlist. He cited Dresden in that speech - there are plenty of other examples he could have picked across many countries - he could have called out Germany for actually invading Russia - instead he has cast them as a victim of what I can only assume at this point is Anglo-Saxon hegemony. I am convinced we will get hit if this escalates into a broader conflict.

Yeah but as much as Putin is trying to paint himself as the saviour of the developing world there, it's not like he has widespread and fervent support for this even amongst such nations. I disagree with the assertion of the guy making that twitter thread - that this was the obvious and apparent strategy from day one. It's been far too haphazard throughout from Russia for that to be true. While I don't doubt that the issue of Western hegemony is a longstanding grievance of Putin's, and a backdrop to a lot of his commentary, I struggle with the idea that this alone and above all else was the reason he kicked this off - it would have been far more centralised in the narrative up until now if it had been. This is the pivot, the attempt to re-cast what is happening. The reality is that 20 years ago Russia would have been more than happy to join up to Western structures if it could have been done in a way wherein Putin could have maintained power throughout - he decided against this because his central aim is ensuring his own power, and now towards the end of his life, his own legacy. I do think it quite likely he will order nuclear strikes because he really has gone all in on this now though. He won't survive this if Russia is repelled, he has to win. So yes Tom, I agree, we are in trouble now. How many lives about to be lost at the whim of a psychopath. And he is a psychopath - that has been as clear as day for years. There was never any excuse.

We would, so you're likely right. That said I am starting to wonder if that's where this is heading either way. Putin annexing regions into Russia is his opportunity to claim Ukraine is breaching Russian sovereignty in those places, and gives him his pretext for a nuclear response. If that happens then IMO NATO is in there no matter what.

Aye so that she can give the rich a payrise, the benefit of which will trickle down to you. Just typing this logic out again it dawns on me once more how ludicrous all of this is.

Truss answered this man, keep up - you get a better paying job.

I have to admit, this is quiet staggering Tories at 21%...

@Renton I just think you're expecting them to panic at this whereas history has shown us that the Tories are more than capable of riding out the storm because they know there are effectively no consequences to them as long as they get it together in time for the GE. You're right in everything you're saying about the pressures that will be upon people, but when they hold Johnson up against Starmer - Johnson who will be painted as a firefighter, a man who steps up to tackle the big issues, a leader in moments of turmoil (which is very Churchill btw, and entirely what he's leaned into himself in terms of his political character), will the public think "fuck that cretin, he created most of this mess with his Brexit and general incompetence" or will they think "Yeah I mean there was Partygate and he doesn't tell the truth all the time, but he got the big calls right, he was a leader in the Ukraine situation, and he did get Brexit over the line - what we need right now is a leader for a time of crisis" In other words, will people remember the politics that got us here, or will they remember the personalities. If it's the latter, and I think the Tories might gamble on that, then Labour will not have it so easy.